news Kamala Harris can't say that transgender people should receive gender-affirming care

[BOOMBAYAH]

1 minute ago, Marianah Adkins said:

She can if she wants to. Though really, its all about narratives every election so she should offer an alternate vision of the country supported by her consistent or complementary views. 

The problem with her is she is so inconsistent. She comes off as far too left and right wing at the same time in the eyes of the electorate. 

Really, the reason why she's tanking to a tie with Trump right now is because the GP saw enough and tuned out. Her high lead after the debate was the GP wanting to know more about her after she slayed the debate and after they did know about her, its clear their enthusiasm flattened. 

(This is just how I see it, not saying it's the reality.) I think her issue with being unclear is not so much that she has no values, but rather the context in which she is operating—she is the vice president and is under Biden's administration. Many people in America view Biden's presidency as an underperformance, and the narrative about him being mentally incompetent has hurt the Democratic Party even more. Since Biden is perceived as a leftist president, many equate all the negatives associated with him to leftism.

 

It seems that no matter how much evidence is presented that Biden is not totally incompetent, people cling to that narrative. Therefore, she needs to navigate this situation instead of "gaslighting" people into believing that Biden—and by extension, leftism—is the answer. She has to take a center-left or center approach while presenting her views in a way that appeals to American Republicans and independents, promoting the idea of bringing Americans together and working with fellow citizens (i.e., Republicans) to fix the country.

 

She also has to balance this with defending Biden and leftism because, 1) she is obviously a Democrat, and 2) she was part of that administration. In my view, it's not so much that she is spineless or has nothing to say, but rather that the American right (and partly some Democrats) have allowed the narrative of progressivism being "extreme" or incompetent to gain such traction that she can only go so far without turning off even the average American, let alone Republicans. She is working within a very limited framework, and to be honest, the fact that she is currently in a tie clearly indicates that the tactics she is employing are effective considering it was viewed as nigh-impossible for Democrats to win this time.

[Raver]

All of her answers are a joke. She can't answer one question without a word salad. 

[Letters From Adi]

This is your so called "progressive POC feminist icon"?

Dems will gaslight people into voting for a RW party claiming they're opposing another RW party.

[leonbotstein]

We're two weeks out from an election where one of Trump's main weapons against her is her past statements on trans surgeries. This is straight-up Trump propaganda.

 

Are you seriously trying to pressure Harris from the left two weeks before a possible fascist takeover that would turn the US into the equivalent of a Central American dictatorship?

 

No—nothing about this post is serious.

[shyboi]

7 minutes ago, Raver said:

All of her answers are a joke. She can't answer one question without a word salad. 

 

The problem is everytime she gets asked about any topic she's trying to think about the most neutral answer possible and that makes her come across as unprepared and confused 

[Marianah Adkins]

15 minutes ago, BOOMBAYAH said:

(This is just how I see it, not saying it's the reality.) I think her issue with being unclear is not so much that she has no values, but rather the context in which she is operating—she is the vice president and is under Biden's administration. Many people in America view Biden's presidency as an underperformance, and the narrative about him being mentally incompetent has hurt the Democratic Party even more. Since Biden is perceived as a leftist president, many equate all the negatives associated with him to leftism.

 

It seems that no matter how much evidence is presented that Biden is not totally incompetent, people cling to that narrative. Therefore, she needs to navigate this situation instead of "gaslighting" people into believing that Biden—and by extension, leftism—is the answer. She has to take a center-left or center approach while presenting her views in a way that appeals to American Republicans and independents, promoting the idea of bringing Americans together and working with fellow citizens (i.e., Republicans) to fix the country.

 

She also has to balance this with defending Biden and leftism because, 1) she is obviously a Democrat, and 2) she was part of that administration. In my view, it's not so much that she is spineless or has nothing to say, but rather that the American right (and partly some Democrats) have allowed the narrative of progressivism being "extreme" or incompetent to gain such traction that she can only go so far without turning off even the average American, let alone Republicans. She is working within a very limited framework, and to be honest, the fact that she is currently in a tie clearly indicates that the tactics she is employing are effective considering it was viewed as nigh-impossible for Democrats to win this time.

If you look at the polls weeks ago, she is at her peak when she is defining herself as a BREAK from Biden and she is at her worse when she is more of the same. If she truly wants to win, she should break from Biden considering he IS the one serving as an anchor weighing her candidacy. This election is basically a referendum on Biden imo given how polled voters keep emphasizing the economy as their main issue. 

And while it is true that she has little room to wiggle through outside of breaking away, this only confirms that the Democrats are wallowing in their learned helplessness.

 

It is truly ironic that America has swung harder to the right in its history during a Democrat administration. It really demonstrates their ineffectiveness. Win or lose, this is a problem that will continue to haunt this party. 

[Uncatena]

55 minutes ago, noodlelymph said:

 

 

Do y'all ever interrogate just why the political climate is more rightwing on a host of issues??? Could it be because none of the "left" (liberal centrists lbr) politicians ever want to take principled stances on anything or don't continue to heavily promote policy to pull the conversation BACK to the left. (No more Medicare for all instead we get… privatized Medicare) You all can't keep excusing politicians for acting "cowardly" for the purpose of winning elections and then act surprised when rightward trends continue to materialize in politics. Stop making excuses and start demanding more from these actors. This is textbook liberal enabling of fascism, the ratchet effect, etc. happening before our eyes. 

 

45 minutes ago, noodlelymph said:

"I need everyone to look at the polling on how transphobic the US public is to excuse the fact that the second most powerful person in this country refuses to push back on this bigotry despite having a prime opportunity to do so because she needs to appeal to and reaffirm this bigotry to win an election (after which she'll do nothing to change her stance because she STILL received enough support from her allegedly pro-trans base to continue throwing trans people under the bus and because 2028 is the most important election of our lifetime)"

 you're nailing it

[BOOMBAYAH]

2 minutes ago, Marianah Adkins said:

If you look at the polls weeks ago, she is at her peak when she is defining herself as a BREAK from Biden and she is at her worse when she is more of the same. If she truly wants to win, she should break from Biden considering he IS the one serving as an anchor weighing her candidacy. This election is basically a referendum on Biden imo given how polled voters keep emphasizing the economy as their main issue. 

And while it is true that she has little room to wiggle through outside of breaking away, this only confirms that the Democrats are wallowing in their learned helplessness.

 

It is truly ironic that America has swung harder to the right in its history during a Democrat administration. It really demonstrates their ineffectiveness. Win or lose, this is a problem that will continue to haunt this party. 

I agree that the optimal answer would be a leftist or center-left Democrat capable of respectfully but loudly calling out the shortcomings of the Biden administration while offering a new, progressive way forward. However, it's difficult for her to do this because, let's be honest, it would be a political nightmare. It doesn't look good for the Vice President to essentially say that her political superior has fallen short, and she would inevitably face accusations like, "So you just went along with what Biden wanted despite your reservations?" or "You knew Biden was incompetent but lied to the American public." We see this in interviews where she breaks away from Biden, often met with those kinds of questions (I think Anderson Cooper also did this during the town hall). I think that if the Democrats (hopefully) win this election, I agree with the people in this thread that they need to avoid getting cocky and instead recognize how much of the dire situation they faced the past year was of their own making.

[DiabeticGrandpa]

1 hour ago, ZeroSuitBritney said:

Where's the ATRL folks who were yelling at us to think of trans folks and their rights when we said we're voting third party because of Kamala's support of the genocide of brown kids

and I... Oop!

[shyboi]

52 minutes ago, noodlelymph said:

"I need everyone to look at the polling on how transphobic the US public is to excuse the fact that the second most powerful person in this country refuses to push back on this bigotry despite having a prime opportunity to do so because she needs to appeal to and reaffirm this bigotry to win an election (after which she'll do nothing to change her stance because she STILL received enough support from her allegedly pro-trans base to continue throwing trans people under the bus and because 2028 is the most important election of our lifetime)"

 

say it louder sis 

[45seconds]

38 minutes ago, Bloo said:

Here's Kentucky Governor (D), Andy Beshear, talking about trans issues in his re-election year:

 

 

 

Republicans continually tried to tank Beshear's campaign by calling him a supporter of child mutilation over his support of trans people and he didn't waver and won. This excuse she "has to win" is lazy and counter-factual. Standing up for basic civil rights is a winning stance.

That's Kentucky. We do not know what the polling suggests elsewhere.  I'm not going to debate this because neither of us are going to change our mind on it. 

[Into The Void]

I think she doesn't want to give a clear response because she wants the votes of the center left and possibly non Trump Republicans. Idk. So if she doesn't give a clear anwser and says it should be up to the law etc some Republicans may feel OK voting for her. Who knows. 

Edited October 25 by Into The Void

[Bloo]

6 minutes ago, 45seconds said:

That's Kentucky. We do not know what the polling suggests elsewhere.  I'm not going to debate this because neither of us are going to change our mind on it. 

Are you actually trying to suggest Kentucky is more friendly for national presidential races than Michigan, Pennsylvania, etc.? 

 

Yes. It's Kentucky. A state that hasn't gone blue in a presidential race since 1996, much longer ago than any of the swing states Harris needs to worry about. So, if standing by trans people in Kentucky of all places is a successful strategy there, then why should Kamala do anything else for Michigan, Pennsylvania, etc.?

 

Additionally, you are incorrect about not knowing what the polling suggests. The polls make it clear, nobody cares about this issue. Kamala's positioning satisfies no one. The pro-trans base of the Democratic Party or pro-trans Independent voters aren't going to be thrilled by this. The trans-apathetic voters won't think anything of this response. And the anti-trans voters will still hate her regardless of what she says. This posturing achieves nothing. But, feel free to pretend otherwise for comfort if you must.

 

 

[45seconds]

Just now, Bloo said:

Are you actually trying to suggest Kentucky is more friendly for national presidential races than Michigan, Pennsylvania, etc.?

I'm suggesting the politics are different? Besheer may have a lot of conservative tendencies that negate any left leaning stances he has for his state so they will still vote with him. The politics in the national elections are different. Hence why we could have a democratic as president and states with Republican senators. Like. Im not gonna try and explain this. 

[Into The Void]

5 hours ago, ChooseyLover said:

And ATRL wants me to think this lady and her corrupted party is a better option than Jill Stein.

 

Your honor, this woman has proven herself to be useless during her campaign AND when she's held a position of power. If I were American I'd take my chances with Jill Stein.

Is there enough votes for Jill Stein to come close to winning even 1 state? 

[Bloo]

2 minutes ago, 45seconds said:

I'm suggesting the politics are different? Besheer may have a lot of conservative tendencies that negate any left leaning stances he has for his state so they will still vote with him. The politics in the national elections are different. Hence why we could have a democratic as president and states with Republican senators. Like. Im not gonna try and explain this. 

Beshear doesn't have major conservative tendencies compared to Kamala Harris. Beshear was one of the VP options leftist voters were more excited by (he was the only option leftist voices thought was promising alongside Tim Walz). He ran more progressively than Kamala has in this cycle. So, your speculation falls a bit flat here.

 

Again, this argument doesn't do anything to explain why it makes sense to not just say you support trans rights. I provided polling above.

[Bloo]

1 minute ago, Into The Void said:

Is there enough votes for Jill Stein to come close to winning even 1 state? 

Jill Stein getting 5% of the popular vote (regardless of where it comes from) would secure federal financial funding of the Green Party which would help them downballot across the country. That's the actual goal which is, frankly, more motivating than voting for Kamala in a deep Blue or deep Red state.

[Into The Void]

1 minute ago, Bloo said:

Jill Stein getting 5% of the popular vote (regardless of where it comes from) would secure federal financial funding of the Green Party which would help them downballot across the country. That's the actual goal which is, frankly, more motivating than voting for Kamala in a deep Blue or deep Red state.

Oh I didn't know that I'm in a red state

[Hex]

Did we all watch the same video? She said she's not gonna put herself in the position of a doctor... is that not fair?

[Bloo]

Just now, Hex said:

Did we all watch the same video? She said she's not gonna put herself in the position of a doctor... is that not fair?

Did she say the word "trans" to acknowledge that marginalized community at all or did she dodge mentioning them altogether?

[45seconds]

5 minutes ago, Bloo said:

Beshear doesn't have major conservative tendencies compared to Kamala Harris. Beshear was one of the VP options leftist voters were more excited by (he was the only option leftist voices thought was promising alongside Tim Walz). He ran more progressively than Kamala has in this cycle. So, your speculation falls a bit flat here.

 

Again, this argument doesn't do anything to explain why it makes sense to not just say you support trans rights. I provided polling above.

Okay. 
 

5 minutes ago, Bloo said:

Jill Stein getting 5% of the popular vote (regardless of where it comes from) would secure federal financial funding of the Green Party which would help them downballot across the country. That's the actual goal which is, frankly, more motivating than voting for Kamala in a deep Blue or deep Red state.

 Jill Stein? JILL STEIN? Ijbol. 

[Bloo]

1 minute ago, 45seconds said:

Jill Stein? JILL STEIN? Ijbol. 

What a salient rebuttal. I'll take it very seriously.

[Distantconstellation]

5 hours ago, ChooseyLover said:

And ATRL wants me to think this lady and her corrupted party is a better option than Jill Stein.

 

Your honor, this woman has proven herself to be useless during her campaign AND when she's held a position of power. If I were American I'd take my chances with Jill Stein.

Well I'm glad u aren't american. Stay hiding behind gifs because you aren't the brightest. I don't like kamala but Jill Stein is a grifter. 

[45seconds]

4 minutes ago, Bloo said:

What a salient rebuttal. I'll take it very seriously.

That's the only response you get by even contemplating voting Stein. She is a grandstanding grifter with absolutely no chance of winning any election EVER. Now your opinion that I at least understood even in disagreeing makes no sense. 

Edited October 25 by 45seconds

[Bloo]

4 minutes ago, 45seconds said:

That's the only response you get by even contemplating voting Stein. She is a grandstanding grifter with absolutely no chance of winning any election EVER. Now your opinion that I at least understood even in disagreeing makes no sense. 

Read. Stop projecting and read. Slow down while you do it, if necessary.

 

Someone asked if Jill Stein could win one state. I pointed out that there's often a different goal altogether for people that are thinking of voting for Jill Stein. I never said anything about my vote. As for the grifting allegations, all politicians are grifters. How is Kamala Harris not a grifter when she flip flops on issues nonstop and campaigns with literal billionaires? 

 

This is getting Off-Topic, so I'm leaving this back-and-forth at this because you're seemingly not interested in an actual conversation.